Which is calling the shots-journalism or chase-mark adventurism?

Hindi channels are no worse as they exacerbate the problem with crime-focused sensationalism, turning tragedies into ratings bonanzas. This national tableau, riddled with ownership ties to political and corporate interests, undermines democratic discourse. Such patterns not only echo but intensify the regional distortions in Telugu media, creating a vicious cycle of misinformation across the subcontinent

In an era where information flows faster than ever, journalism’s sacred duty—to inform, educate, and hold power accountable—has been hijacked by the relentless pursuit of eyeballs.

Paparazzi hounding celebrities, YouTubers peddling “thumbnail expressionism” with exaggerated grimaces and hyperbolic titles, and traditional media chasing ratings through manufactured outrage have collectively diluted the essence of reporting.

Once a noble pursuit of truth it has now morphed into “chase-mark adventurism,” a frantic scramble for viewer metrics that prioritises spectacle over substance.

This transformation is not merely aesthetic; it erodes public trust, polarizes societies, and turns news into a weaponized narrative. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Telugu media landscape, where regional channels, owned by political heavyweights, have elevated character assassination to an art form. By dumping individuals through relentless smears and elevating opponents via hagiographic praise, these outlets betray journalism’s core, fostering a toxic ecosystem that mirrors the very divisiveness they claim to critique.

Globally, the malaise is palpable. Clickbait thumbnails on YouTube—those garish close-ups of wide-eyed anchors screaming “shocking revelation!”—exemplify how algorithms reward sensationalism over depth. Platforms like these democratized content creation but also amplified echo chambers, where facts bend to fit viral potential.

Traditional media, not to be outdone, adopts similar tactics: sting operations devolve into entrapment, and debates resemble gladiatorial bouts. In India, this hybrid beast thrives amid a voracious appetite for 24/7 news.

With over 900 channels vying for attention, the pressure to sensationalise is immense. Yet, in the Telugu-speaking states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the stakes are uniquely high. Here, media houses are not neutral arbiters but extensions of political fiefdoms, in which the promoters double up as kingmakers.

The result? A journalism that serves as a megaphone for vendettas and transforms information dissemination into a high-octane chase for electoral “marks”—ratings, relevance, and revenge.

The Indian context amplifies these global trends through a confluence of cultural fervour and political intensity. Telugu audiences, passionate about cinema, cricket, and regional politics, tune in for unfiltered drama. But what begins as engaging storytelling often spirals into bias-laden propaganda.

At the national level, this degradation permeates India’s broader media spectrum, where Hindi and English channels perpetuate similar vices on a grander scale. A popular national electronic media house exemplifies “godi media”—a pejorative for outlets perceived as lapdogs to the ruling BJP.

Its rival mirrors this with its edgy, sensational reporting, often accused of fuelling communal tensions via selective outrage, as seen in its coverage of sensitive issues like farmer protests or religious disputes. Its ditto with an early bird that was once hailed for its balanced journalism but now faces allegations of left-leaning bias, skewing narratives on economic policies or minority rights.

Hindi channels are no worse as they exacerbate the problem with crime-focused sensationalism, turning tragedies into ratings bonanzas. Such patterns not only echo but intensify the regional distortions in Telugu media, creating a vicious cycle of misinformation across the subcontinent.

Major media conglomerates are deeply intertwined with party politics. Two leading Telugu channels have long been accused of aligning with the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), portraying its leader, N. Chandrababu Naidu, as a visionary technocrat while caricaturing rivals as corrupt demagogues. In stark contrast, their rival channel, founded by a powerful leader from Andhra Pradesh, inverts this script: A 2023 fact-check by M9 News highlighted how a channel twisted a court judgment on Naidu’s Skill Development Corporation case, omitting exonerating details to amplify allegations of fraud, thereby “lifting” the opposition narrative of systemic plunder under TDP rule. Such selective reporting isn’t isolated; it’s systemic, fuelled by ownership stakes that blur editorial independence.

In Telugu electronic media, this bias manifests most brazenly with the presenters and analysts wielding microphones like swords in ideological duels.

One channel especially epitomizes “thumbnail expressionism” in broadcast form. A 2023 content analysis by the Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research found that this channel was employing sensational elements—dramatic graphics, urgent B-roll footage, and hyperbolic voiceovers—in 124 out of 364 stories reviewed, far outpacing their competitors in the TRP sweepstakes. Interviews and debate shows in the Telugu media are more like shouting matches, where anchors ‘interrogate’ guests with preconceived scorn, turning discourse into demolition derbies. Critics liken it to Fox News’ prurient style, where prurience trumps probity, and viewer addiction to outrage sustains the cycle.

Another TV channel counters with its own arsenal of antagonism. IDuring its coverage of the 2023 coverage of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly elections, it created sensations with anonymous “insider” leaks, which in due course proved to be fabricated.

Ironically, its news analysts invite only sympathetic voices to dissect opponents’ foibles.

This adventurism exacts a heavy toll. Public discourse in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, already fractured by linguistic pride and historical schisms, grows ever more tribal. Viewers, bombarded by biased feeds, retreat into confirmation bubbles, eroding the shared factual ground essential for democracy. The 2019 bifurcation’s lingering wounds, exacerbated by media-fuelled narratives, have made reconciliation elusive.

Moreover, the rise of YouTubers aping these channels—uploading “exposés” with AI-generated

thumbnails of teary-eyed politicians—further fragments trust, as unregulated digital spaces outpace broadcast oversight.

Yet, hope persists in efforts to restore balance. Digital fact-checkers like Alt News debunk viral falsehoods, exposing media manipulations. Regulators like the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority must enforce stricter guidelines on0 ownership disclosures and hatemongering. Journalists, too, bear responsibility—to reclaim the pen as a tool of illumination, not incineration.

In Telugu media’s cauldron, restoring journalism’s essence demands more than lip service; it requires a collective vow to prioritize truth over the thrill of the chase.

Only then can information dissemination evolve from adventurism to enlightenment, safeguarding the democratic soul it once nurtured.